EXPERIENCES AT ST. VEDAST (now St. James) AND THE S.E.S

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:57 pm

I would just like to point out that the man protecting and the woman being protected is not an SES idea. Most religious wedding ceremonies involve protection of the bride being passed over from the father to the future husband. It is not coincidental that as the institution of marriage is dying out, so is the idea that a woman needs to be protected. Although I oppose the SES on several major issues, I agree with them on treating women your own age as sisters. Men I know who have followed this principle have had happier and more successful relationships with women than those who have not.

May I just return to the quote about Mr Debenham's reason for corporal punishment being appropriate only for boys: it is because girls don't need corporal punishment as they are suitably punished emotionally by being rebuked. It is not a criticism of women (in fact, it's probably the opposite) to say that they are effected more emotionally than boys: they do not need to be caned to learn a lesson. Many call this attitude sexual discrimination and stereotyping, but it's just stating the obvious fact that men and women are different. That's not to say one is better than the other; indeed, the respective qualities of men and women are such that they complement, not contradict, each other. Only in America can the idea of homosexual marriages arise (in the words of Mr Debenham, "It just doesn't fit").

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:59 pm

Sorry, the last message was from Anon - boys school (for the purposes of this board, I name myself Antises).

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:21 am

Antises wrote:Only in America can the idea of homosexual marriages arise (in the words of Mr Debenham, "It just doesn't fit").


In the Netherlands, homosexual marriages are common
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marh.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm
Last edited by mgormez on Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Gormez

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:46 pm

Hello Tom,

Tom Grubb wrote:Well, of course it's sexual discrimination! As is their stupid generalisation about a man feeling the need to protect and a woman needing to be loved.


Well now a days, the idea of women being equal to men is totally wrong! It is NOT the fact that both are equal, they cannot be compared! They are DIFFERENT. This great sense of women wanting to be independent, and wanting to show independance can in certain ways hurt a lot of people. It is evident enough, when a boy opens the door for a girl, hold's her bags, etc they do naturally show care, wanting to protect? Do correct me if I'm wrong. Many girls now feel that being 'independant' they do not need looking after, and why should a boy hold the door for her, she is strong enough to do so herself, surely the boy is undermining her own strength? Its not sterotypical, it shows the natural tendency of MAN. Just because I say that a man natural instint is to protect, it doesnt mean that a Woman whould not show protection, everyone's natural desire is to protect those we love, however what the Philosophy teaches us, are the things which seem to be forgotten.

Tom Grubb wrote:When I was a boy I also felt a strong need to protect AND to be protected and loved. At St vedast I was not shown love and I was not protected from the cruelty and violence of several staff members.


Have you written to Mr Debenham? Have you told anyone how u really feel? They have an Old Boys and and Old Girls organisation aswell, I'm not sure if you're aware of this? I think they even have matches (rugby and lacrosse) between the old pupils (now called the '7th form') and the current pupils. Visit the school! There is so much you can do. In a way, the teachers really need to know what they put you and many others through, and you need to know how much it really has changed!

Tom Grubb wrote: Or are you happy to accept the SES's sexual stereotyping?


In this case (I feel) the SES was not sterotyping. However they do sometimes, and you have to accept them while you are in the school ofcourse, not that I agree to them.

ANON-from the girls' school. :Fade-color

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:20 am

[quote="Anonymous"]May I just return to the quote about Mr Debenham's reason for corporal punishment being appropriate only for boys: it is because girls don't need corporal punishment as they are suitably punished emotionally by being rebuked. It is not a criticism of women (in fact, it's probably the opposite) to say that they are effected more emotionally than boys: they do not need to be caned to learn a lesson. [quote]

Neither do boys. This is the biggest load of outdated bullcrappy I have ever heard - and to have it come from a young person living in 2004 shows me there is something deeply disturbing about the "philosopies" of the SES.

It really does play on outmoded stereotypes. YES boys and girls (and men and women) are different, but they have more in common than they have differences. Also environment they are brought up in plays a role. Plus there have always been girls who are more masculaine and boys who are more feminine (and this has NOTHING to do with the sexual preferences).

It's a shame that the SES doesn't even bother studying any feminist philosophies. And they call themselves a school of Philosophy - the only people they study are dead white males. *rolls eyes*

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

REPLY TO RECENT POSTS

Postby Tom Grubb » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:04 pm

I hope this thread isn't veering too far off-topic (if it does, perhaps we should open a new thread) but I just have to respond to some of the points that Antises, 'ANON - from the girls' school' and 'a different guest' have made!



Here we go:

To Antises:
Apparently, you think that "girls don't need corporal punishment as they are suitably punished emotionally by being rebuked....they do not need to be caned to learn a lesson"? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I sense a subtext along the lines of: "boys, being the unemotionaI creatures they are, do need a dose of physical pain to keep them in line."

I'm certainly not arguing that men and women aren't different (I know a bit about biology!) but yes, I do think you are guilty of highly offensive and unfounded sexual stereotyping. My experience of interacting with males and females tells me that BOTH are emotional beings who tend to respond positively to love and affection and negatively to violence. Do you really think hitting little boys does not cause them lasting emotional harm? Do you really think hitting little boys teaches them anything apart from the 'lesson' that violence is a good way to deal with people who don't do what you tell them to do?

And by the way, I admire the USA for its contributions towards the advancement of gay rights but, as Mike Gormez points out, America (some states at least) isn't alone in having introduced gay marriages. I hope that the United Kingdom will soon follow the Netherland's and the USA's fine example.

To 'ANON - from the girls' school':
Er, I'm sorry but I didn't realise that the idea of male-female equality was "totally wrong"! Silly me! I must be very out of touch but I hold doors open for men AND women! And I don't think I've ever felt hurt by women wanting independence. Are you aware of how patronising you sound when you cite the SES's "Philosophy" with a capital P?

No, I haven't written to Mr Debenham yet. But I will! Believe me, I will! Yes, I have told a few people how I really feel about St Vedast and the SES cult. I'm not really into rugby or lacrosse, thanks, but I do realise that there is an Old Boys organisation. Perhaps I will visit St James but please realise that, after the abuse that I and other pupils suffered at St Vedast, it's not a very easy prospect!

Finally, sorry to repeat myself but why, if your school is such a free and open place, do you still feel the need for anonymity? (I still fully respect your right to remain anonymous, of course, but I'd like to know why you feel the need to do so.)

To 'a different guest':
Thank you! In the interest of fairness, I would point out that some of the people the SES promote are long-dead BROWN males! I remember Krishna and Arjuna being quite important to them!

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:06 pm

Correction: I meant the Netherlands' (not the Netherland's!) fine example. and I'm an English teacher!!!

a different guest

Re: REPLY TO RECENT POSTS

Postby a different guest » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:21 pm

Tom Grubb wrote:To 'a different guest':
Thank you! In the interest of fairness, I would point out that some of the people the SES promote are long-dead BROWN males! I remember Krishna and Arjuna being quite important to them!


My apologies for that oversight. *rueful look*

Thinking more on this - it seems to me that the whole "punishment" thing (hitting boys, verbally rebuking girls who, apparently, are sensitive to such things) are done with the intent on HURTING and WOUNDING the child. They are PUNISHING the child. It is all about having power over them - "look, do what I say or I will hurt you".

That is NOT what discipline is about. Discipline is about teaching your child NOT hurting them.

And the whole idea that this hurting the child is "done with love" just makes my stomach turn.

ANON-from girls school

Postby ANON-from girls school » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:29 pm

Reply to the post above:

Surely if ignorace prevails, another force must be taken. I only say this because I feel that my parents have the right to "slap" me. I would be horrified if there was a ban on parents not being allowed to 'hit' their own children.

Sorry, if you dont mind me asking... do you have kids of your own? Ofcourse you can ignore this question if you don't want to answer it.

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

COME ON GUYS, IT'S REALLY NOT ALL THAT COMPLICATED!

Postby Matthew » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:49 pm

The issue of physical/mental abuse administered in the past aside (as discussed in previous postings), I think the following question needs to be asked in the interests of future generations:-
How much transparency is there on the issue of how St James is sold to prospective parents?
i.e. Exactly what is taught there with regard to their particular brand of religious/philosophical education, vis-a-vis their ties/connections with the cultish S.E.S. Are they genuinely up-front about all that? At least then parents are fully in the picture as to their practices, and can therefore make the informed choice of whether or not to subject their children to this. All of this especially considering the fact that, from what I gather, some of these past-perpetrators are still being employed there.

Re:- The recent postings debating the arguments for and against corporal punishment.
I think in order to put this into some kind of perspective, the following point needs to be made:-
Corporal punishment is one thing, child abuse is something very different. I assure you I do not use this term lightly, but "child abuse" is what went on in the days of St Vedast. I know that for a fact because I and my peers were subjected to it and we have the evidence to back this up. The physical scars of this may heal, the psychological scars, unfortunately in a lot of cases do not. Again, we have the evidence for this too.
Last edited by Matthew on Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:13 am, edited 7 times in total.

Anon- from the girls' sch

Re: REPLY TO RECENT POSTS

Postby Anon- from the girls' sch » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:50 pm

Tom Grubb wrote:Er, I'm sorry but I didn't realise that the idea of male-female equality was "totally wrong"! Silly me! I must be very out of touch but I hold doors open for men AND women! And I don't think I've ever felt hurt by women wanting independence. Are you aware of how patronising you sound when you cite the SES's "Philosophy" with a capital P?

No, I haven't written to Mr Debenham yet. But I will! Believe me, I will! Yes, I have told a few people how I really feel about St Vedast and the SES cult. I'm not really into rugby or lacrosse, thanks, but I do realise that there is an Old Boys organisation. Perhaps I will visit St James but please realise that, after the abuse that I and other pupils suffered at St Vedast, it's not a very easy prospect!

Finally, sorry to repeat myself but why, if your school is such a free and open place, do you still feel the need for anonymity? (I still fully respect your right to remain anonymous, of course, but I'd like to know why you feel the need to do so.)


I understand why it is not an easy prospect to get in touch with the school, you obviously do not have to if you dont want to! I would also like to say how I have witnessed a few people read Matthew's account of his life at St Vedast, some of the comment they made were "it seems so unrealistic", "perhaps it is slightly exaggerated", "I suppose you have to take it with a slight pinch of salt", "this must have happened, surely however it was in that sort of time where you would find it in any other school". As you can see many actually do not belive how St james could be such a horrible place to be in, it just shows that it has changed quite a lot, in not only my eyes, but in others too.

My school is a free and open place, however it is quite small also. I certainly do not want to get any attention from what I say, as this is also a very touchy topic to many of my freinds.

Tom Grubb wrote: I would point out that some of the people the SES promote are long-dead BROWN males! I remember Krishna and Arjuna being quite important to them!


It's a shame how you decribe them in such an awful way. IF i didn't know any better I would probably find it slightly insulting. Krishna and Arjuna largely take part in the 'Gita', a book which I find quite interesting!

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

Postby Matthew » Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:07 am

Dear Anon- from the girls' sch
Re:
I would also like to say how I have witnessed a few people read Matthew's account of his life at St Vedast, some of the comment they made were "it seems so unrealistic", "perhaps it is slightly exaggerated", "I suppose you have to take it with a slight pinch of salt", "this must have happened, surely however it was in that sort of time where you would find it in any other school". As you can see many actually do not belive how St james could be such a horrible place to be in, it just shows that it has changed quite a lot, in not only my eyes, but in others too.


I would refer you to my last entry above.
I guess it's important be aware of where your current school has evolved from. Need I say more?

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Re: REPLY TO RECENT POSTS

Postby Alban » Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:30 am

Anon- from the girls' sch wrote:
Tom Grubb wrote: I would point out that some of the people the SES promote are long-dead BROWN males! I remember Krishna and Arjuna being quite important to them!


It's a shame how you decribe them in such an awful way. IF i didn't know any better I would probably find it slightly insulting. Krishna and Arjuna largely take part in the 'Gita', a book which I find quite interesting!


I don't suppose they would mind very much being as they are FICTIONAL characters! :black:

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:06 am

ANON-from girls school wrote:Reply to the post above:

Surely if ignorace prevails, another force must be taken. I only say this because I feel that my parents have the right to "slap" me. I would be horrified if there was a ban on parents not being allowed to 'hit' their own children.

Sorry, if you dont mind me asking... do you have kids of your own? Ofcourse you can ignore this question if you don't want to answer it.


Yes I have children - and they have NEVER been hit. All hitting does is show children that using violence is an acceptable way of solving a problem. I do NOT think that is a good thing to teach people.

Discipline methods should be suit the age and temperment of the child. Discipline is about teaching children what is acceptable behaviour - to most civilised people "acceptable behaviour" does NOT include hitting the other person to make your point.

I am "horrified" that you believe that hitting children is perfectly acceptable. I have read that in the 5th year of adult SES training a special woman's course is run that teaches women to be subservient to men. So if the woman is subservient and disobeys then it is perfectly acceptable for the husband to hit her?

Your parents do NOT have the right to slap you. And I find it very sad that you think this (non-existant) "right" is a good thing. It is not a good thing, it is barbaric (which is why there are laws about it).

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:08 am

sorry - forgot to put my "different guest" name in that post.

woops!


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests